New method 'confirms dark energy'

[Agloco]

Science News. Quite big.


Einstein was right

To explain why the expansion of the Universe was speeding up, astronomers had to either rewrite Albert Einstein's theory of gravity or accept that the cosmos was filled with a novel type of energy.

"The action of dark energy is as if you threw a ball up in the air, and it kept speeding upward into the sky faster and faster," said co-author Dr Chris Blake of the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia.

"The results tell us that dark energy is a cosmological constant, as Einstein proposed. If gravity were the culprit, then we wouldn't be seeing these constant effects of dark energy throughout time."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13462926

[boutons_deux]

so the universe will or won't collapse, is/is not oscillating?

Vedanta gurus claim the universe has been through 40 oscillations.

[LnGrrrR]

I thought that dark energy was accepted by the scientific community at large already?

To be honest though, dark energy/quantum physics just goes to show how much yet we have to learn. According to the article, "regular" matter makes up 4% of the cosmos. 4%! Science is crazy.

[Agloco]

I thought that dark energy was accepted by the scientific community at large already?

To be honest though, dark energy/quantum physics just goes to show how much yet we have to learn. According to the article, "regular" matter makes up 4% of the cosmos. 4%! Science is crazy.

Yeah, it's been accepted for a few years yet, these tests serve to confirm earlier observations. I assume there will be follow on tests to determine the specific parameters of this dark matter constant. Exciting stuff. The spirit of Chandrashekar is probably out there smiling. I'm sure much of his work will be validated through this breakthrough as well.

[RandomGuy]

On a mildly related note, you can expect this 12 year old to probably figure it out.

Jacob Barnett
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110320/LOCAL01/103200369/Genius-work-12-year-old-studying-IUPUI
:wow

Kid is an ueber genius at math and physics. Holy crap.


For Jake, that meant astronomy. As a 3-year-old, he loved looking at a book about stars, over and over again.

So off they went on a tour of the Holcomb Observatory and Planetarium at Butler University.

Kristine Barnett will never forget the day.

"We were in the crowd, just sitting, listening to this guy ask the crowd if anyone knew why the moons going around Mars were potato-shaped and not round," she recalls. "Jacob raised his hand and said, 'Excuse me, but what are the sizes of the moons around Mars?' "

The lecturer answered, and "Jacob looked at him and said the gravity of the planet . . . is so large that (the moon's) gravity would not be able to pull it into a round shape."

Silence.

"That entire building . . . everyone was just looking at him, like, 'Who is this 3-year-old?' "

[TDMVPDPOY]

this is what i dont get if the universe is expanding, then how come within our solar system, shouldnt the distance between the lining planets also expand outwards?

is our system also moving further away from point A = start of the universe?

[RandomGuy]

this is what i dont get if the universe is expanding, then how come within our solar system, shouldnt the distance between the lining planets also expand outwards?

is our system also moving further away from point A = start of the universe?

From what I understand of the article it probably is, but the effect on such a small scale is probably pretty minute.

When you scale up to the gaps between galaxies, that is a whole other matter entirely.

[Wild Cobra]

To my knowledge, the assumption the universe is expanding is based on using the red-shift and or blue-shift of observed galaxies elsewhere, and science as we understand it. I wouldn't accept that hypothesis as fact. I would say it probably is true, but I keep open the possibility that something else can account for these Doppler effects of light.

[TDMVPDPOY]

if universe expanding from point A forwards/outwards...is there anything b4 point A? or just dark space clouds only???

[DMX7]

I would say it probably is true, but I keep open the possibility that something else can account for these Doppler effects of light.

dSMWuHOkuL0

[z0sa]

It's still hard for me to believe 96% of the universe is unobservable

[TE]

I thought that dark energy was accepted by the scientific community at large already?

To be honest though, dark energy/quantum physics just goes to show how much yet we have to learn. According to the article, "regular" matter makes up 4% of the cosmos. 4%! Science is crazy.

It basically means we are a fucking speck of dust in a large vast ocean.

[boutons_deux]

Most amazing the universe was created 6,000 years ago just for man on earth, and in just 144 hours. God complies with Blue Laws.

[cheguevara]

and to think he used only 11% of his brain

[MannyIsGod]

It's still hard for me to believe 96% of the universe is unobservable

Why?

[z0sa]

in the immortal boutonbot's words,

go fuck yourself

[TDMVPDPOY]

this dark matter or energy, where the source come from?

someone should explain why its pitch black in space....why black?

[Wild Cobra]

dSMWuHOkuL0
That seems pretty bogus to me. If what he said were the case, our reference would be relatively expanding as well, and the net effect would be we see no change.

The Doppler effect makes more sense. I would guess that his perspective comes from an idea that infinity doesn't exist.

Who is this guy anyway? Is he a writer of the X-Files?

[Wild Cobra]

Dr. Chris Impey (http://www.as.arizona.edu/people/faculty/impey.html), huh...

Dr. Chris Impey, Sunday, 8-1-10 (http://www.portaltotheuniverse.org/podcasts/eps/view/68941/)

[Wild Cobra]

It's still hard for me to believe 96% of the universe is unobservable
That's 96% of the assumed universe...

[Wild Cobra]

Most amazing the universe was created 6,000 years ago just for man on earth, and in just 144 hours. God complies with Blue Laws.
That's obviously an incorrect translation of the word.

[DMX7]

That seems pretty bogus to me. If what he said were the case, our reference would be relatively expanding as well, and the net effect would be we see no change.


It seems pretty bogus to you because you are the antithesis of Einstein.

The net effect would be nothing? I have no idea what you're trying to communicate, but I'll try to address it anyway with a simple example.

If you baked a blueberry muffin in which the blueberries were galaxies and the dough were space, the expansion of the dough would move the blueberries away not just from the center but from EACH OTHER. (i.e., if the blueberries were 1/4 of an inch away from each other when you started baking they would be greater than 1/4 of an inch away from each other when you stopped, the net effect is not zero even though the reference point (which ever blueberry you tracked) has also moved)

Read Redshift Velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

&

http://www.df.uba.ar/users/sgil/physics_paper_doc/papers_phys/cosmo/doppler_redshift.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

It seems pretty bogus to you because you are the antithesis of Einstein.

The net effect would be nothing? I have no idea what you're trying to communicate, but I'll try to address it anyway with a simple example.

If you baked a blueberry muffin in which the blueberries were galaxies and the dough were space, the expansion of the dough would move the blueberries away not just from the center but from EACH OTHER. (i.e., if the blueberries were 1/4 of an inch away from each other when you started baking they would be greater than 1/4 of an inch away from each other when you stopped, the net effect is not zero even though the reference point (which ever blueberry you tracked) has also moved)

Read Redshift Velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

&

http://www.df.uba.ar/users/sgil/physics_paper_doc/papers_phys/cosmo/doppler_redshift.pdf
I understand all that.

If space itself is expanding, then there would be no perceived color shift if it expanded evenly. For us to see a color shift, the expansion would not be uniform.

If we had light at 300 nm (nanometers) and the universe expanded by 5% over the millions of years traveled to us, it would be 315 nm. Our present day reference for 300 nm then, would also expand to 315 nm.

There would be no perceived color change, unless the expansion was not uniform.

Now if you are saying the wavelength remains constant as the universe expands, then we would see a blue shift rather than red.

[MannyIsGod]

in the immortal boutonbot's words,

go fuck yourself

Um, wow. Ok.

[Wild Cobra]

If read that 2nd one correctly, then it could be said that mass is shrinking rather than the universe expanding. Same net effect, and not seen from our perspective. For the explanation to be sound, would be to suggest that the size of mass can be changed in a given space. There would have to be no "fabric" of space that holds a constant for mass size for the expansion theory if they are saying what I think they are.

Still, when you boil it down, if an expanding universe rather than galaxies moving through a universe were true, the physical distance is changing, and there is a net Doppler effect. So... just how is it different?

Seems like more science fiction than science.

3o8vsU0Dw-4

[DMX7]

I understand all that.


You obviously don't. Reread and refresh your understanding.

[MannyIsGod]

Wild Cobra is a master of all disciplines of science and understands it more than the practicing scientists. Thats why he's a parts changer. Nothing says curious scientific mind like someone who changes parts. Nothing.

[Wild Cobra]

You obviously don't. Reread and refresh your understanding.
Then tell me what I missed.

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Cobra is a master of all disciplines of science and understands it more than the practicing scientists. Thats why he's a parts changer. Nothing says curious scientific mind like someone who changes parts. Nothing.
I could very well be missing something.

How is an expanding universe different than galaxies moving in space? Better question, how can they claim there is enough information to claim a more complex hypothesis?

Tell me what I missed. In layman terms then, since you seem to understand it, how does the red shift take place when it's not by the Doppler effect?

How does a given wavelength change length, in such a manner that our relative reference doesn't also change?

The muffin comparison is the same thing as the Doppler effect.

[DMX7]

A cosmological redshift is NOT a Doppler effect. A cosmological redshift is caused by wavelengths expanding WITH the fabric of space. If two co-moving galaxies have the space (or dough in my blueberry example) in between them stretched, then it creates a redshift. What is so difficult to understand about that?

It won’t get any more dumbed down that this:
“In the early part of the twentieth century, Slipher, Hubble and others made the first measurements of the redshifts and blue shifts of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. They initially interpreted these redshifts and blue shifts as due solely to the Doppler effect, but later Hubble discovered a rough correlation between the increasing redshifts and the increasing distance of galaxies. Theorists almost immediately realized that these observations could be explained by a different mechanism for producing redshifts. Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is required by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric expansion of space.[17] As a result, photons propagating through the expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift.

There is a distinction between a redshift in cosmological context as compared to that witnessed when nearby objects exhibit a local Doppler-effect redshift. Rather than cosmological redshifts being a consequence of relative velocities, the photons instead increase in wavelength and redshift because of a feature of the spacetime through which they are traveling that causes space to expand.[24] Due to the expansion increasing as distances increase, the distance between two remote galaxies can increase at more than 3×108 m/s, but this does not imply that the galaxies move faster than the speed of light at their present location which is forbidden by Lorentz covariance.”
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

[DMX7]

v = z x c is the equation WC is saying to use to measure velocity.

So redshift of 3 for a quasar basically means WC is telling us its moving at 3x the speed of light.

[Wild Cobra]

DMX, understand that concept. What I don't understand is why it is assumed to only affect photons, and not mass. For such a mechanism to occur, we would have to assume that space is changing. Not just expanding. That there is a physical aspect. Wavelengths change in length as they go through various mediums. For this idea to work, it means that the fabric of space is losing density of whatever this medium is. It would make sense that a quantity of space gets less dense as it expands. It's back to the idea that a new science must now be created to explained whys only the photons are affected. What about the matter? Why isn't it affected?

Still, no matter how the universe is expanding, the distances between galaxies is agreed to be increasing, meaning there is velocity between us and others, meaning there is a Doppler effect.

Removing one equation from the perceived gross change. Some pretty fine SWAGging to do when we cannot accurately place the distances and velocities in an accurate enough perspective.

I will remain skeptical of this hypothesis.

[Wild Cobra]

v = z x c is the equation WC is saying to use to measure velocity.

So redshift of 3 for a quasar basically means WC is telling us its moving at 3x the speed of light.
Yet we have no way to prove it.

Mathematically, we also have "i" you know. Very useful in vector mathematics, but not real in any physical aspect.

What if photons actually slow down in frequency over time with some unknown mechanism? Wouldn't that be as valid?

What if this quasar had a very strong gravity that emitted hydrogen at near the speed of light, slowing its vibration down relativistically. Wouldn't this account for the hydrogen spectral lines being displaced so far, appearing at 3x light speed shift?

[MannyIsGod]

WC knows more about every science than the scientists who study it. Its clearly obvious. Its why he's so widely published in peer review journals.

[DMX7]

DMX, understand that concept. What I don't understand is why it is assumed to only affect photons, and not mass. For such a mechanism to occur, we would have to assume that space is changing. Not just expanding. That there is a physical aspect. Wavelengths change in length as they go through various mediums. For this idea to work, it means that the fabric of space is losing density of whatever this medium is. It would make sense that a quantity of space gets less dense as it expands. It's back to the idea that a new science must now be created to explained whys only the photons are affected. What about the matter? Why isn't it affected?


What? Space is expanding and the universe is less dense. Expanding space means stretched wavelengths as a result of having to travel through more space.

[DMX7]

WC knows more about every science than the scientists who study it. Its clearly obvious. Its why he's so widely published in peer review journals.

No shit. This retard literally thinks he knows better than Einstein.

[MannyIsGod]

Its his MO. He argues with any subject that someone is specialized in. I literally cracked up when someone bumped a Freetail thread in the club last week and I saw that years ago WC had argued with Scott about beer making. Its fucking hillarious.

[DMX7]

Its his MO. He argues with any subject that someone is specialized in. I literally cracked up when someone bumped a Freetail thread in the club last week and I saw that years ago WC had argued with Scott about beer making. Its fucking hillarious.

lol, and do you notice how he keeps saying he already understands what I'm posting and yet just a few hours ago he said that the doppler effect made more sense to him than the cosmological redshift?

[Wild Cobra]

lol, and do you notice how he keeps saying he already understands what I'm posting and yet just a few hours ago he said that the doppler effect made more sense to him than the cosmological redshift?
I follow what is being said, it just doesn't track with what I learned in the past. I do understand the explanation. Did you understand what I meant by having to subtract the Doppler red shift to see the expansion red shift? Sure, it's theoretically possible that the galaxies are stationary in space, and that space is expanding with no Doppler effect, but how do we differentiate? Our brief observation of the universe seems statistically insignificant to accept such ideas beyond a hypothesis.

If space is actually expanding as suggested, what does it mean at the subatomic level? How do we explain the nonlinear aspect of it between matter and wave? What does it mean for quantum level cohesion as time goes by? Could matter spontaneously disintegrate?

The whole reason I am skeptical of such ideas is that I believe the characteristics of matter would change if the media that the wave forces resides in, changes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I understand all that.

If space itself is expanding, then there would be no perceived color shift if it expanded evenly. For us to see a color shift, the expansion would not be uniform.

If we had light at 300 nm (nanometers) and the universe expanded by 5% over the millions of years traveled to us, it would be 315 nm. Our present day reference for 300 nm then, would also expand to 315 nm.

There would be no perceived color change, unless the expansion was not uniform.

Now if you are saying the wavelength remains constant as the universe expands, then we would see a blue shift rather than red.

Light moves at an absolute velocity. You do not. The Hubble constant is much much much less than c.

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[LnGrrrR]

WC, photons are very unique objects. Why not ask why humans can't decohere or quantum tunnel? Anything with mass can't travel the speed of light, AFAIK, so that's a likely reason why it may only affect photons.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

DMX, understand that concept. What I don't understand is why it is assumed to only affect photons, and not mass. For such a mechanism to occur, we would have to assume that space is changing. Not just expanding. That there is a physical aspect. Wavelengths change in length as they go through various mediums. For this idea to work, it means that the fabric of space is losing density of whatever this medium is. It would make sense that a quantity of space gets less dense as it expands. It's back to the idea that a new science must now be created to explained whys only the photons are affected. What about the matter? Why isn't it affected?

Still, no matter how the universe is expanding, the distances between galaxies is agreed to be increasing, meaning there is velocity between us and others, meaning there is a Doppler effect.

Removing one equation from the perceived gross change. Some pretty fine SWAGging to do when we cannot accurately place the distances and velocities in an accurate enough perspective.

I will remain skeptical of this hypothesis.

Because photons move at an absolute velocity and nothing else does.

And there is no direct evidence of a medium. its just a construct for simple minds to understand. The point is that things do not move through something but relative to something else

[LnGrrrR]

If space is actually expanding as suggested, what does it mean at the subatomic level? How do we explain the nonlinear aspect of it between matter and wave? What does it mean for quantum level cohesion as time goes by? Could matter spontaneously disintegrate?

What do any of these have to do with space expanding?

And I have no clue what you meant by the media a wavelength goes through. Light traveling into water gets "bent", changing the wavelength, but that doesn't change the characteristics of light.

[LnGrrrR]

Frankly, I'm pretty sure WC's idea of disappearing/shrinking mass would cause a whole lot more damage to our knowledge of our universe than an expanding space theory would.

[Einstein's Ghost]

Frankly, I'm pretty sure WC's idea of disappearing/shrinking mass would cause a whole lot more damage to our knowledge of our universe than an expanding space theory would.

Och, I was rolling in my grave, wondering why, and then I discovered this thread. Do not let this ''WC'' keep making a mockery of my discoveries. Scheiß!!

[Wild Cobra]

Because photons move at an absolute velocity and nothing else does.

And there is no direct evidence of a medium. its just a construct for simple minds to understand. The point is that things do not move through something but relative to something else
Then their frequency wouldn't decrease as the nonexistent medium expands.

I see it as possible that this dark energy has an effect. If you notice, I haven't said the idea is impossible. I'm just not convinced.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, photons are very unique objects. Why not ask why humans can't decohere or quantum tunnel? Anything with mass can't travel the speed of light, AFAIK, so that's a likely reason why it may only affect photons.
Yes, I know photons are unique. Still, I have a hard time buying than an expanding universe would only affect photons.

As for mass not traveling at the speed of light? We don't know that as fact. Our understood mathematics tells us we cannot accelerate mass to that speed. It says that mass would be infinite, but what if there's a real variable we don't understand?

Lets not worry about that though.

If space is expanding and actually making the physical distance between galaxies increase, how do we differentiate between a red shift from that, or the actual doppler effect?

[Wild Cobra]

What do any of these have to do with space expanding?
The idea of space expanding is meaningless unless space has some kind of form.

And I have no clue what you meant by the media a wavelength goes through.
If it isn't the dopple effect that changes the frequency of light, then either light slows down some how with time, or the expanding universe hypothisis has merit. or it to have merit, space would have to have some tangible substance.

Aether, for lack of a better word.

Light traveling into water gets "bent", changing the wavelength, but that doesn't change the characteristics of light.
Yes, but that simile doesn't work for me. If light leaving a galaxy is "bent" in the space between galaxies, then doesn't it stand to reason that it would correct itself when it enters the receiving galaxy? Like light going through glass at an angle.

[MannyIsGod]

Its not about space expanding but the universe expanding fool. SMH.

[Wild Cobra]

Frankly, I'm pretty sure WC's idea of disappearing/shrinking mass would cause a whole lot more damage to our knowledge of our universe than an expanding space theory would.
I wasn't saying that's what happens. I'm saying that of the medium of space increases, making light waves longer, that it seems the distance between subatomic particles should increase too. I went on to say that mass could actually be shrinking instead, giving a relative perspective that the universe was expanding.

In science, you have absolute, differential, and other ways to measure things. If we are accepting such sciences, how would we know the difference? What if our perception of expansion was because we were shrinking instead?

[Wild Cobra]

Its not about space expanding but the universe expanding fool. SMH.
Why isn't that the same difference?

[DMX7]

What if our perception of expansion was because we were shrinking instead?

My eyes nearly rolled out of their sockets.

[Wild Cobra]

My eyes nearly rolled out of their sockets.
From a relative perspective, they are one in the same. Without being a God, or the God, how would we know if mass was shrinking, or if space was expanding?

What can we use as an absolute reference to know which is the truth?

[Cry Havoc]

From a relative perspective, they are one in the same. Without being a God, or the God, how would we know if mass was shrinking, or if space was expanding?

What can we use as an absolute reference to know which is the truth?

Wow.

Just wow.

I suggest you start reading modern scientific theory rather than positing rehashed, tired questions on SpursTalk to the annoyance of everyone.

[TE]

WC continues proves to be the most ignorant poster on this site.

[LnGrrrR]

From a relative perspective, they are one in the same. Without being a God, or the God, how would we know if mass was shrinking, or if space was expanding?

What can we use as an absolute reference to know which is the truth?

And we could be brains in a vat, all hooked up to a shared simulation. But since there's no way to verify that, there's really no point in bringing it up, since it's completely unfalsifiable.

However, the universe expanding CAN be falsifiable, if the correct dataset doesn't conform with current theory.

[RandomGuy]

Then tell me what I missed.

100+ hours of classes in astrophysics, for starters.

I think I will wait for the 12 year old to figure it out, and see what *he* says, no offense, but he is far more adept at this than you will ever be.

[RandomGuy]

And we could be brains in a vat, all hooked up to a shared simulation. But since there's no way to verify that, there's really no point in bringing it up, since it's completely unfalsifiable.

However, the universe expanding CAN be falsifiable, if the correct dataset doesn't conform with current theory.

There is some speculation that there are some aspects of the universe that seem to imitate what we know of advanced computer simulations.

Namely the quantum effects of probability where we can know either the position of small particles, or their vectors, but not both. (hope I said that right) When we aren't looking or observing, things seem to exist in "in-between" states, and only resolve when we take the time to observe them, ala Schoedinger's cat.

[RandomGuy]

From a relative perspective, they are one in the same. Without being a God, or the God, how would we know if mass was shrinking, or if space was expanding?

What can we use as an absolute reference to know which is the truth?

We use our observations of the universe. Gather data, and develop out understanding.

This does not require omniscience. Yet another bad starting assumption on your part.

[TeyshaBlue]

Well, we've made one discovery here on our little ST forum. WC has harnessed the incalculable power of a black hole of logic.

[LnGrrrR]

There is some speculation that there are some aspects of the universe that seem to imitate what we know of advanced computer simulations.

Namely the quantum effects of probability where we can know either the position of small particles, or their vectors, but not both. (hope I said that right) When we aren't looking or observing, things seem to exist in "in-between" states, and only resolve when we take the time to observe them, ala Schoedinger's cat.

Oh yeah, I know about that. Quantum physics is a topic I like reading about. And yes, I've heard the thought argument about the likelihood of an of us being simulations.

My point was just that it's unverifiable, therefore, it's not really science.

[vy65]

reading some of the shit on "heat death" is really fucking depressing . . .

:depressed

[Wild Cobra]

Well, we've made one discovery here on our little ST forum. WC has harnessed the incalculable power of a black hole of logic.
Well, since nobody was able to explain it in meaningful words, you guys don't understand it any better than I do. I simply would like to see a better explanation, but no one here is capable of that.

Please notice, I'm not saying the hypothisis/theory is wrong, I'm pointing out other possible holes that you guys cannot plug.

Get with it. In science, you have to eliminate other possibilities.

[RandomGuy]

Well, since nobody was able to explain it in meaningful words, you guys don't understand it any better than I do. I simply would like to see a better explanation, but no one here is capable of that.

Please notice, I'm not saying the hypothisis/theory is wrong, I'm pointing out other possible holes that you guys cannot plug.

Get with it. In science, you have to eliminate other possibilities.

You say that as if the scientists studying that with advanced degrees and who are at least as intelligent than you are, have not eliminated or explored those other possibilities.

If you can, from a layman's perspective, think of these things, it is more than reasonable that the people who study this for decades, i.e. their entire adult professional lives, have certainly thought of those very things.

Your underlying assumption, i.e. that the scientists haven't accounted for the things you think are "holes" has no supporting evidence, and, worse yet, seems to me to be highly implausible to put it charitably.

As I said, I will wait for the 12 year old to have a couple of decades to crack this problem.

I, for one, will not pretend to understand it well enough to criticize it. I leave that kind of "thinking" to twoofers and the like.

[RandomGuy]

reading some of the shit on "heat death" is really fucking depressing . . .

:depressed

That shit will happen long long long after we are all dead, and our species has vanished like a fart in a hurricaine.

Whatever life comes after us will have to deal with that eventuality.

[vy65]

That shit will happen long long long after we are all dead, and our species has vanished like a fart in a hurricaine.

Whatever life comes after us will have to deal with that eventuality.

That's even more depressing . . .

[Wild Cobra]

Random, you clearly missed my point.

I am not disagreeing with the theory that was previously unknown to me.

However, no one here is able to understand it well enough to debate it past "the experts said..."

It would really be refreshing if someone could answer those "holes" I ask about.

[Blake]

Random, you clearly missed my point.

I am not disagreeing with the theory that was previously unknown to me.

However, no one here is able to understand it well enough to debate it past "the experts said..."

It would really be refreshing if someone could answer those "holes" I ask about.

so if someone claimed to be an expert here, what do you believe would give their expertise more validation than any expert answer that you could google on your own?

[DMX7]

The whole reason I am skeptical of such ideas is that I believe the characteristics of matter would change if the media that the wave forces resides in, changes.

Why?

[Blake]

The whole reason I am skeptical of such ideas is that I believe the characteristics of matter would change if the media that the wave forces resides in, changes.

sounds like that media is too liberal for you.

hey-o

[DMX7]

The biggest problem is WC doesn't even understand the questions he's asking which are usually full of false premises. And that, of course, usually isn't isolated to questions about cosmology.

[z0sa]

Um, wow. Ok.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Once again the notion of the void eludes the ignorant. there is no point in trying to discuss this topic with him.

The interpretation of field theory by Einstein was by parametrization of real observable values. Real observable values related to one another that correlate with unmistakable precision trump any notion of incredulity of WC.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then their frequency wouldn't decrease as the nonexistent medium expands.

I see it as possible that this dark energy has an effect. If you notice, I haven't said the idea is impossible. I'm just not convinced.

Frequency is an inverse function of time. The universe has a time dimension as well that is not static or absolute. Think about it but do not hurt yourself.

[DMX7]

Delivers pizzas, changes parts AND punches holes in astrophysics and theoretical cosmology.

He does it all, folks!

[ElNono]

Och, I was rolling in my grave, wondering why, and then I discovered this thread. Do not let this ''WC'' keep making a mockery of my discoveries. Scheiß!!

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Frequency is an inverse function of time. The universe has a time dimension as well that is not static or absolute. Think about it but do not hurt yourself.
You obviously didn't understand my intent about the quasar.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[DarkReign]

this dark matter or energy, where the source come from?

someone should explain why its pitch black in space....why black?

The presence of all color (ie light) is white.
The absence of all color (ie light) is black.

Hence, space is black with pinholes in it (ie light from stars, which gets reflected off other objects like comets, asteroids, planets, moons, etc).

[LnGrrrR]

You obviously didn't understand my intent about the quasar.

I guess since you didn't explain it in meaningful terms, you don't know any better than I do.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess since you didn't explain it in meaningful terms, you don't know any better than I do.
Well, in my opinion, anyone debating this topic at a level to understand the dynamics, would know what I meant.

Quasars have an enormous gravity. A black hole in their center explains how they do what they do. The energy emitted where it is emitted could easily have a red shift simply due to relativistic effects.

[MannyIsGod]

Its not about space expanding but the universe expanding fool. SMH.


Once again the notion of the void eludes the ignorant.

[MannyIsGod]

Why isn't that the same difference?

Because apples are not oranges? If a train is moving away from you and blowing its whistle, you get an audible Doppler affect. However, while the distance between you is increasing that does not mean that everything between the two of you is expanding.

Space occupied by the universe does not equal the universe.

[Wild Cobra]

Because apples are not oranges? If a train is moving away from you and blowing its whistle, you get an audible Doppler affect. However, while the distance between you is increasing that does not mean that everything between the two of you is expanding.

Space occupied by the universe does not equal the universe.
Yes, and sound travels through a medium. If light doesn't travel through a medium, then there is no change if the universe is expanding.

What you are saying though is that the train (distant galaxy) is moving away from us rather than the universe expanding.

Consider the train, but it is fixed and the space is increasing. It's sound would remain the same tone if the air around it is relative to it.

[LnGrrrR]

Cognitive dissonance, thy name is WC.

Now:


Well, in my opinion, anyone debating this topic at a level to understand the dynamics, would know what I meant.

Earlier:


Well, since nobody was able to explain it in meaningful words, you guys don't understand it any better than I do. I simply would like to see a better explanation, but no one here is capable of that.

So, when I don't understand you, it's my fault. But when you don't understand others, it's their fault.

[LnGrrrR]

What you are saying though is that the train (distant galaxy) is moving away from us rather than the universe expanding.

Except that in this case, (if I understand it right, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but the train is both moving away from us AND expanding the universe. Picture a train running into a giant piece of pliable material, that moves along with the train.


Consider the train, but it is fixed and the space is increasing. It's sound would remain the same tone if the air around it is relative to it.

I think you need to rework this sentence so it makes sense.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think you need to rework this sentence so it makes sense.

Why start now?

[Wild Cobra]

So, when I don't understand you, it's my fault. But when you don't understand others, it's their fault.
Please stop cherry picking quotes and put all the context together. Fact is, nobody was able to answer some key concerns I had related to the expanding universe theory, but rather, simply put blind trust in the experts. The explanations that were given are not very good.

If the universe is nothing, how does it expand?

How is that different than actual movement?

If the universe had no medium, then how does the expansion change a wavelength? It shouldn't if there is no medium to stretch it.

I can accept the expanding universe theory, but when people say that space is nothing, it doesn't pan out.

[Wild Cobra]

Except that in this case, (if I understand it right, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but the train is both moving away from us AND expanding the universe. Picture a train running into a giant piece of pliable material, that moves along with the train.



I think you need to rework this sentence so it makes sense.
The sound waves change lengths because the train is moving through a medium. If there is no medium to change the sound waves, they would remain the same length is they could still propagate.

[LnGrrrR]

Please stop cherry picking quotes and put all the context together. Fact is, nobody was able to answer some key concerns I had related to the expanding universe theory, but rather, simply put blind trust in the experts. The explanations that were given are not very good.

Maybe that's because you're not asking the right questions.

Also, "blind trust" in the experts? First off, it's not quite "blind trust" when it's peer-reviewed. Second, unless you're actually performing these experiments yourself, how are you able to lay claim to some sort of firsthand knowledge? You're getting your info from outside sources as well.

Everyone else seemed fine with the explanations. You were the only one who didn't.

If I demand reasons on why science can't turn sand into ice cream, and the board explains it but I'm not satisfied with their answers, does that mean that the board is wrong? :lol


If the universe is nothing, how does it expand?

Has anyone here said the universe was nothing? I don't think so, so I don't know why you're asking that question.


How is that different than actual movement?

Again, no one has brought up that strawman.


If the universe had no medium, then how does the expansion change a wavelength? It shouldn't if there is no medium to stretch it.

But the universe has mediums. Even vacuums have some small amt of resistance IIRC. The only "true" vacuums are in lablike settings. (Again, IIRC.)


I can accept the expanding universe theory, but when people say that space is nothing, it doesn't pan out.

Who said space is nothing? I must've missed that claim.

[Cry Havoc]

The explanations that were given are not very good.

Uh, welcome to science, Wild Cobra. We use the best model we have (i.e., what can discern with our senses, intelligence, and tools) to form an explanation for an event or series of events.

[TeyshaBlue]

Who the fuck believes the universe is nothing? Jeebus Fucking Keerist.http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

[coyotes_geek]

If I demand reasons on why science can't turn sand into ice cream, and the board explains it but I'm not satisfied with their answers, does that mean that the board is wrong? :lol


Because our beaches would melt. Duh! :p:

[Blake]

Who said space is nothing? I must've missed that claim.

Wild Cobra is the lord of the straw

[MannyIsGod]

God damn why can't this fool understand that Photons are different? SMH.

[MannyIsGod]

Please stop cherry picking quotes and put all the context together. Fact is, nobody was able to answer some key concerns I had related to the expanding universe theory, but rather, simply put blind trust in the experts. The explanations that were given are not very good.

If the universe is nothing, how does it expand?

How is that different than actual movement?

If the universe had no medium, then how does the expansion change a wavelength? It shouldn't if there is no medium to stretch it.

I can accept the expanding universe theory, but when people say that space is nothing, it doesn't pan out.

This is why motherfuckers like you shouldn't try to critique scientific theory without a proper education. You don't have to get that education at a university but these questions just show you don't have the understanding necessary to pass a basic physics course.

[MannyIsGod]

Photons can travel through nothing like other particles and have wave properties as well. Trying to say the red shift needs a medium with light as it does with sound ignores the above. Welcome to the shit you learn in freshman physics or chemistry.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, and sound travels through a medium. If light doesn't travel through a medium, then there is no change if the universe is expanding.


This shit is irritating. And you want to lecture others while you spout this idiocy?

[ElNono]

Good lord. Sound requires particles to travel through, as it's an oscillation of pressure. That's why it can't travel through a vacuum. There are no particles in a vacuum.

Photons, on the other hand, are a massless particle themselves. The only connection they have with waves is that some of the formulas you need to calculate their quantum properties are wave-like. That's where it ends.

[MannyIsGod]

I could create a vacuum in a lab and shine light through it. I could easily give the light a red shift. Of course, thats all impossible according to WC.

[DMX7]

So, when I don't understand you, it's my fault. But when you don't understand others, it's their fault.

That's exactly what I was thinking. He's like a child.

[LnGrrrR]

Because our beaches would melt. Duh! :p:

I'm not satisfied with that answer. You haven't explained fully to me why we can't turn sand into ice cream; therefore, your logic is flawed.

[LnGrrrR]

Photons can travel through nothing like other particles and have wave properties as well. Trying to say the red shift needs a medium with light as it does with sound ignores the above. Welcome to the shit you learn in freshman physics or chemistry.

Tbh, I'm taking a freshman chem class to satisfy a science course, and we aren't learning about photons. It's more about chemical equations and their interactions (changes of state, enthalpy, whether energy is released or not, etc etc)

Physics class we probably would go over it though.

[MannyIsGod]

Wait till you get to the portion about spectroscopy. If you don't cover photons I'll be shocked.

[LnGrrrR]

Wait till you get to the portion about spectroscopy. If you don't cover photons I'll be shocked.

I know a little about spectroscopy, since I work in comm. (We have to deal with OC-192, 10g/sec fiber cables sometimes, which use multiple wavelengths of light to carry different traffic across different freqs/spectrums.) I don't know much beyond the general theory though. 10g/sec links tend to go up once and stay up. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe that's because you're not asking the right questions.

I'm pretty sure I asked the right question for what i responded too, but I could be wrong.

Have an example?


Also, "blind trust" in the experts? First off, it's not quite "blind trust" when it's peer-reviewed. Second, unless you're actually performing these experiments yourself, how are you able to lay claim to some sort of firsthand knowledge? You're getting your info from outside sources as well.

I'm not. I already pointed out I am arguing against people who cannot explain it. That's what I find ironic.


Everyone else seemed fine with the explanations. You were the only one who didn't.

I can't help but wonde5r if it's because they want to be against me.

Again, do they understand it?


If I demand reasons on why science can't turn sand into ice cream, and the board explains it but I'm not satisfied with their answers, does that mean that the board is wrong? :lol

Of course not. Maybe someday we will be able to rearrange molecules at the nuclear or quantum level. Today we don't know how, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.


Has anyone here said the universe was nothing? I don't think so, so I don't know why you're asking that question.

Yes. Without looking back I cannot say who. Someone did, hence my response on those lines.


Again, no one has brought up that strawman.

If that's what you wish yo believe.


But the universe has mediums. Even vacuums have some small amt of resistance IIRC. The only "true" vacuums are in lablike settings. (Again, IIRC.)
Not talking about vacuum, but what would be the unknown tangible fabric of space.


Who said space is nothing? I must've missed that claim.

Yes, you did, but I'm not going to look back for you.

Remember please, I said this was an unknown theory to me. As I searched it, I don't disagree with the theory. I disagree with how others are explaining it.

[Wild Cobra]

Uh, welcome to science, Wild Cobra. We use the best model we have (i.e., what can discern with our senses, intelligence, and tools) to form an explanation for an event or series of events.
I see you conveniently miss some of my statements so you can perceive me as stupid, rather than ignorant to this theory that is new to me.

Your bad, not mine.

[Wild Cobra]

God damn why can't this fool understand that Photons are different? SMH.
Why can't you understand what I have been saying?

I know photons are different.

[Wild Cobra]

Photons can travel through nothing like other particles and have wave properties as well. Trying to say the red shift needs a medium with light as it does with sound ignores the above. Welcome to the shit you learn in freshman physics or chemistry.
Then explain how they red shift.

Why are you saying that space has no medium? Seems to me that the medium that space is composed of is this dark energy. The photons have to interact with something if they are to change frequency.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not. I already pointed out I am arguing against people who cannot explain it. That's what I find ironic.

You can't even explain it enough for the majority on this board to grasp either. Does that mean that you don't understand it?


I can't help but wonde5r if it's because they want to be against me.

Doubtful.


Again, do they understand it?

To be honest, your questions haven't proven that you understand it either. Should we just take you at your word, when you won't even take scientists at THEIR word?


Of course not. Maybe someday we will be able to rearrange molecules at the nuclear or quantum level. Today we don't know how, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

I don't quite think you got my point. :)


Yes. Without looking back I cannot say who. Someone did, hence my response on those lines.

I didn't see it, but maybe you're right. (shrug)


Not talking about vacuum, but what would be the unknown tangible fabric of space.

Are you asking what's on the edge of the universe, or how we separate "universe" from "not-universe"? Someone more knowledgeable about this may be able to give some of the latest and greatest theories.


Remember please, I said this was an unknown theory to me. As I searched it, I don't disagree with the theory. I disagree with how others are explaining it.

Fair enough. What part, specifically, are you disagreeing with? The.. consistency (for lack of a better word) of a vacuum medium?

[LnGrrrR]

Then explain how they red shift.

Why are you saying that space has no medium? Seems to me that the medium that space is composed of is this dark energy. The photons have to interact with something if they are to change frequency.

Did you mean to say dark matter?

[Wild Cobra]

Did you mean to say dark matter?
No, I said that right. Not sure I'm right though.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you asking what's on the edge of the universe, or how we separate "universe" from "not-universe"? Someone more knowledgeable about this may be able to give some of the latest and greatest theories.
It's all conjecture at that point. That's not what I mean anyway. Is space absolutely nothing, or does it have some unknown fabric? There is at least some interacting force or fabric to stretch light as it expands. It it was nothing, light could only expand because of the Doppler effect, which is probably the gravitational forces within a galaxy that light interacts with.

Fair enough. What part, specifically, are you disagreeing with? The.. consistency (for lack of a better word) of a vacuum medium?
Without going back, I forget. Several things were mentioned. The only thing that sticks to mind is that someone claims that space has no fabric, yet they agree the expansion of space stretches the wavelength as space expands. I simply cannot accept that explanation. What is stretching the wavelengths if space is completely void, if it's not the Doppler effect?

[MannyIsGod]

If you really want to understand it then read a bit about quantum mechanics. Until then your opinion doesn't really matter.

The point is not whether modern physics theory is right or wrong but rather that your criticisms involve elementary misunderstandings of the very basic principles of theory.

[MannyIsGod]

And yes, space has no fabric. In outer space, there is of course particles at an incredibly low density but there is no medium or ether as you refereed to it earlier. The reason light is able to traverse this is because unlike sound it is a particle. Its not a very difficult concept at all.

How or why it displays the qualities of a wave, such as the Doppler effect that gives us the red shift is much harder to understand but it does not mean there is a medium. Also, you do not seem to understand that while a sound wave may spread out and that is why it displays the doppler effect the same is not true for a photon. It does not spread out.

[Wild Cobra]

And yes, space has no fabric. In outer space, there is of course particles at an incredibly low density but there is no medium or ether as you refereed to it earlier. The reason light is able to traverse this is because unlike sound it is a particle. Its not a very difficult concept at all.

How or why it displays the qualities of a wave, such as the Doppler effect that gives us the red shift is much harder to understand but it does not mean there is a medium. Also, you do not seem to understand that while a sound wave may spread out and that is why it displays the doppler effect the same is not true for a photon. It does not spread out.
Then what causes the red shift with an expanding universe if space has nothing to interact with the photons?

[LnGrrrR]

Then what causes the red shift with an expanding universe if space has nothing to interact with the photons?

I think redshift/blueshift/Doppler effect occurs independent of the medium. (It's not the medium causing the Doppler effect, but the moving away/towards the observer. The media is just carrying the signal.)

[MannyIsGod]

Depends on where the photon is traveling though. Gravity and other forces. Quantum Physics does not subscribe to the theory of a medium nor is there any evidence. As someone tried to explain to you, the Doppler effect is not the mechanism used for the cosmological redshift.

[Wild Cobra]

Depends on where the photon is traveling though. Gravity and other forces. Quantum Physics does not subscribe to the theory of a medium nor is there any evidence. As someone tried to explain to you, the Doppler effect is not the mechanism used for the cosmological redshift.
I can go with gravity. However, if we are to say gravity or forces are to change the wavelengths, then how can we say a quasar is traveling 3X the speed of light, if gravity or forces changes the perception of said light? How do you reliably subtract one variable from several and claim with certainty that the universe is expanding?

You see what I mean, or not?

[LnGrrrR]

then how can we say a quasar is traveling 3X the speed of light,

We can't. Nothing can go faster than light speed. (Now, you might be able to cheat it by bending space/time, but that's not quite the same.)

[MannyIsGod]

Claim for certainty? Its a theory. Its the theory that best econompasses the observed data, but I don't think anyone has every claimed its a certainty. As I said above, it may very well be wrong but the questions you're asking have been asked for a long time and there are workable theories for them.

However, if the universe was not expanding we would be seeing extremely different - even opposite - sets of observed data. That fact that quasars appear so far away that they would have to exceed the speed of light to get there, for instance, is data in favor of expansion.

[Wild Cobra]

Claim for certainty? Its a theory. Its the theory that best econompasses the observed data, but I don't think anyone has every claimed its a certainty. As I said above, it may very well be wrong but the questions you're asking have been asked for a long time and there are workable theories for them.

However, if the universe was not expanding we would be seeing extremely different - even opposite - sets of observed data. That fact that quasars appear so far away that they would have to exceed the speed of light to get there, for instance, is data in favor of expansion.
OK, you are now starting to agree with me.

How does anyone know quasars are too far away to stay within relativistic speeds? That would mean knowing even more things that are just theories.

[LnGrrrR]

How does anyone know quasars are too far away to stay within relativistic speeds? That would mean knowing even more things that are just theories.

I don't know why you put "just" there. It's not like we could actually travel out to the quasar itself to get a measurement; theory is all we will have for quite awhile. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know why you put "just" there. It's not like we could actually travel out to the quasar itself to get a measurement; theory is all we will have for quite awhile. :lol
Exactly.

So how can everyone say with certainty my questions are wrong?

Am I the one saying anything here with certainty, or is it others?

Science is meant to be questioned.

[MannyIsGod]

OK, you are now starting to agree with me.

How does anyone know quasars are too far away to stay within relativistic speeds? That would mean knowing even more things that are just theories.

If you want to rewrite an encompassing physics theory that can account well for all observable data then you are free too. Until something better comes along, I'm going to go ahead and go with the modern theory.

In other words how do we "know" where quasars are? Because when all the data of the universe is taken into account, that is where modern physics theory says they are. Its not some simple arbitrary theory. Its the sum of the work people like Hubble, Einstein, Doppler, and those that came before them. Thats why the OP is big news.

Do you understand all of this?

[MannyIsGod]

Exactly.

So how can everyone say with certainty my questions are wrong?

Am I the one saying anything here with certainty, or is it others?

Science is meant to be questioned.

Its not that anyone can say that you're wrong with absolute certainty but rather that you ask questions that have been asked for a long time and you don't understand the very basic reasoning behind the theory to begin with. For instance, you're questioning the work of hundreds of years of physics research which on its own isn't bad. But you do it without the simple understanding of how a photon works.

And thats without even taking into account how sick of you people are because you do this on a regular basis. You protest out of pure ignorance with people who actually know what they are talking about and you've done it for such a long time that I don't think there is a person here who cuts you much slack.

[Wild Cobra]

If you want to rewrite an encompassing physics theory that can account well for all observable data then you are free too. Until something better comes along, I'm going to go ahead and go with the modern theory.

In other words how do we "know" where quasars are? Because when all the data of the universe is taken into account, that is where modern physics theory says they are. Its not some simple arbitrary theory. Its the sum of the work people like Hubble, Einstein, Doppler, and those that came before them. Thats why the OP is big news.

Do you understand all of this?
Believe it or not, I do understand all that.

I am asking how can we know that they are so far away and a creation or start point to say they travel faster than light.

[MannyIsGod]

Who says they travel faster than light? The very reason that they appear so far away as indicated by their redshift is because the universe is expanding.

[Wild Cobra]

Who says they travel faster than light? The very reason that they appear so far away as indicated by their redshift is because the universe is expanding.
I guess you weren't following the thread.

[ElNono]

Believe it or not, I do understand all that.

I am asking how can we know that they are so far away and a creation or start point to say they travel faster than light.

First, you need to read about The Hubble Constant (https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/). That would give you a basic idea of how the universe expansion was originally proposed, measured, and refined as time and technology improved.

Given that such constant gives you a ratio of expansion (speed/distance), you get a scale that tell you what the 'age' of the universe should be.

Now, as far as measurements, this post from another board basically explains it fairly well:


There are three systems of measurement used, depending on distance.

First, the nearest stars can be determined by use of parallax -- the shift in their positions over six months, during which the earth moves to the opposite end of a baseline of 186,000,000 miles as it orbits the sun. A hypothetical star at 3.2 light years distance would have shifted by one second of arc (1/3600 of a degree) -- that distance therefore being one parsec. A parsec is the inverse of the parallex shift in seconds -- a star at 6.4 LY would appear to move half a second of parallax, and therefore be two parsecs; one at 12.8 LY, a quarter second, and hence four parsecs; and so on.

Obviously, this measurement only works up to a limited distance -- those angles become exceedingly tiny, even with the best of equipment. However, they provide a fairly good cross-section of the types of star.

Now, we turn to the H-R diagram. On this, a star on the main sequence will be of a given intrinsic brightness (absolute magnitude) to radiate at a given spectrum. Stars off the main sequence will have certain specific characteristics, such as broadened absorption bands from the distended atmospheres of red giants, etc.

Hence by identifying a star as of a given brightness and "type," we can by the process of comparing visual magnitude with absolute magnitude calculate how far away that star is. A star that would be -3 at ten parsecs distance (its absolute magnitude) which is +1 in visual magnitude is obviously significantly farther away than ten parsecs.

A variation on this technique involves the Cepheids, which are blue supergiant stars that pulse in a period intrinsically related to their absolute brightness and size, Ergo, if a cluster of stars or galaxy contains a Cepheid with visual magnitude of +12 that has a given variability period, it is possible to figure out what a Cepheid of that period's absolute magnitude is, and hence how far away it -- and the cluster of which it is a part -- is. This extends the brightness-distance measurement to the nearest galaxies -- say 2-5 million light years out.

Beyond this, the red shift measurement is done on the basis of the expanding universe, and is only used where the other measurements will not work. A given galaxy known by Cepheid measurements to be, say 3 million LY out, will radiate in a spectrum with specific lines marking absorption by given elements, transitions of excited ions, etc. Those lines are at specific points on the spectrum. If a faint galaxy shows a spectrum where such a line pattern is shifted down the spectrum to a different wavelength, then one can assume that the spectroscopic Doppler effect of movement at relativistic speeds is occurring, and objects at extreme distances are assumed to be moving at such speeds due to the expansion of the universe due to the shifts in their spectral patterns.

(link (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2976609&postcount=3))

[MannyIsGod]

I guess you weren't following the thread.

No, its more like you apparently didn't understand DMX's sarcasm when he was showing you why what you were saying was flawed. God damn.

[Blake]

OK, you are now starting to agree with me.


lol

[Cry Havoc]

I guess you weren't following the thread.

If two cars are accelerating away from each other at 70 mph in a 75 mph speed limit zone, does that mean that one car can be pulled over for traveling faster than the speed limit?

[Wild Cobra]

First, you need to read about....
No shit Sherlock.

Again, I am the one pointing out it is theory, not fact. Take it as fact if you like, but keep in mind that our future understanding of science may negate it.

[ElNono]

No shit Sherlock.

Then why bring up sound and propagation through a medium if you're already aware that, factually speaking, that's not even remotely comparable to photons?

Sounds you were talking out of your ass again...

[DMX7]

No shit Sherlock.

Again, I am the one pointing out it is theory, not fact. Take it as fact if you like, but keep in mind that our future understanding of science may negate it.

Gravity isn't a "fact" either, dumbass.

I'm not convinced you know what science is.

[MannyIsGod]

WC who do you think you're fooling? I mean really?

[ElNono]

If two parts are accelerating away from each other at 70 mph in a 75 mph speed limit zone, does that mean that one part can be pulled over for traveling faster than the speed limit?

There, I dumbed it down a bit so he can understand... :lol

[Wild Cobra]

There, I dumbed it down a bit so he can understand... :lol
LOL...

If you say so.

I'm simply tired of trying to explain a possibility or two that others apparently cannot comprehend.

[MannyIsGod]

Damn, ElNono.... :lmao

[MannyIsGod]

LOL...

If you say so.

I'm simply tired of trying to explain a possibility or two that others apparently cannot comprehend.

:lmao Oh, you're the one dropping knowledge in this thread huh?

[DMX7]

There, I dumbed it down a bit so he can understand... :lol

lol, in addition to being a theoretical physicist and parts changer, WC also used to deliver pizzas. So there is no legitimate excuse for him to not understand either analogy.

[LnGrrrR]

Again, I am the one pointing out it is theory, not fact. Take it as fact if you like, but keep in mind that our future understanding of science may negate it.

Yes, but it's as good as fact NOW until we get information that disputes it.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm simply tired of trying to explain a possibility or two that others apparently cannot comprehend.

Except the "possibilities" you cite have no evidence to back them up, which is why they are dismissed. If you have evidence for these other possibilities, point it out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Light is a particle in the sense that it is transmitted in absolute quantities that are experimentally reproducible. In that sense it is a quanta but mre than that is just conjecture as there is no way to idependently observe 'them.'

The problem with this discussion is that WC understands the propagation of waves like sound and tides and then assumes that because those phenmenon require a medium then all things do.

That is just a baseless assertion on his part and once again a demonstration of his shortsightedness and general ignorance.

One thing is clear if you actually study field theory in any depth: it is not intuitive. things do not behave as you would expect. The hubris is when you think that things should behave as you expect. Hubris thy name is WC. Idiocy thy name is WC.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.livestream.com/worldsciencefestival/video?clipId=pla_da487674-9dcd-4e09-899e-896eacb369e9

Long, but good. Good part starts 28:00 in or so.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

I finished watching that above video this morning and its fucking great because I swear at the 1 hour 30 minute mark they are almost perfectly addressing WC in so many ways. Its uncanny.

[Agloco]

Och, I was rolling in my grave, wondering why, and then I discovered this thread. Do not let this ''WC'' keep making a mockery of my discoveries. Scheiß!!

How the hell did you get the double "s" in text? :lol

I have to say WC, you've stuck your head in the grinder. Again.

[Wild Cobra]

How the hell did you get the double "s" in text? :lol

I have to say WC, you've stuck your head in the grinder. Again.
How, by asking questions others here cannot answer? There are so many unknowns. Just interjecting some of them and not as fact.

Would you agree this thread is about either hypothesis or theory and not fact?

[TE]

How, by asking questions others here cannot answer?

:lmao

Your questions take the topic of quantum physics three hundred years back.


Honestly, quit acting like you know anything with certainty, especially in the field of science. Science in general is based on asking the right questions. Your questions........ well I think I already pointed out what feasibility they have.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Your questions take the topic of quantum physics three hundred years back.


Honestly, quit acting like you know anything with certainty, especially in the field of science. Science in general is based on asking the right questions. Your questions........ well I think I already pointed out what feasibility they have.
I never said I knew any of this with certainty. I am disagreeing that others say they do!

Look at my posts. Most are questions, aren't they?

[LnGrrrR]

Well, the theories you are questioning have more evidence than other theories. There's lots of holes to be poked in current theory, but it doesn't mean slot unless there's another theory to replace it.

[DazedAndConfused]

WildCobra wins the prize for dumbest fucking poster in ST history. Seriously this guy has to be a troll, nobody can be this stupid.

[Winehole23]

No no, he's totally real.

[Winehole23]

No way he's fake. No effing way. How could you fake that?

[Winehole23]

OTOH, I have always been a bit suspicious at the degree of self-disclosure. So much damaging personal information delivered unbidden and completely gratuitously, on a public effing forum. Who would do that intentionally?

[Wild Cobra]

Well, the theories you are questioning have more evidence than other theories. There's lots of holes to be poked in current theory, but it doesn't mean slot unless there's another theory to replace it.
Again, I am not disputing the theory.

[Wild Cobra]

WildCobra wins the prize for dumbest fucking poster in ST history. Seriously this guy has to be a troll, nobody can be this stupid.
What ever you wish to believe. Glad I can entertain you.

[MannyIsGod]

Again, I am not disputing the theory.

No, you're just bringing up shit like light needing a medium and not understanding what a photon is.. You know, integral parts of the theory you are disputing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am a bit Fuzzy on string theory but isn't it that the strings vibrate at discrete values causing the discrete packes that are interpreted as particles. That the quanta properties of photons are based on the nature of the strings and not photons being particles?

[DMX7]

WildCobra wins the prize for dumbest fucking poster in ST history. Seriously this guy has to be a troll, nobody can be this stupid.

I've said this repeatedly and I will say it again.

I'm not convinced WC knows what science is.

[Blake]

I never said I knew any of this with certainty. I am disagreeing that others say they do!

Look at my posts. Most are questions, aren't they?

the ol' "how do you know that God doesn't exist" argument.

greatness.

[Winehole23]

WC was only asking a series of leading questions. How is that an argument?

[Wild Cobra]

No, you're just bringing up shit like light needing a medium and not understanding what a photon is.. You know, integral parts of the theory you are disputing.
If the universe is expanding, then what is it comprised of to be expanding?

[LnGrrrR]

If the universe is expanding, then what is it comprised of to be expanding?

Matter? Reality? That's a bit open-ended of a question.

[MannyIsGod]

If the universe is expanding, then what is it comprised of to be expanding?

:lol Really?

[Wild Cobra]

:lol Really?
Is it already infinite, or not? If not, what's on the other side when it ends?

[MannyIsGod]

How can something that is infinite expand? Who says there's another "side". You're incredibly unimaginative and that will limit you when discussing this.

[Wild Cobra]

How can something that is infinite expand?
Isn't that one of the things I was quizzing you know-it-alls earlier?

The answer I kept getting is the universe is expanding, rather than actual movement of galaxies.

My bringing up the other side was to illustrate if it isn't endless, what is there when it ends?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Did you really call someone - ANYONE - else a know it all?

Fucking really?

You realize they have measurement estimates for the universe, right? How would you measure something that was infinite? Obviously something isn't infinite can expand. You don't seem to be understanding some very simple ideas here.

Just because something isn't infinite doesn't mean it ends with a fixed boundary yet you keep coming back to this.

[ElNono]

Also, I don't see the connection between expanding and having boundaries (or not). And how having boundaries and what they're made of have any significance with expansion.

[baseline bum]

How can something that is infinite expand? Who says there's another "side". You're incredibly unimaginative and that will limit you when discussing this.

I hate to distract from the pile on WC thread, but there are actually different infinities that can be ordered... e.g.,

N0 = cardinality ("count") of the set of integers
c = cardinality of the set of reals
N2 = cardinality of the set of functions f: reals -> reals

and so on has N0 < c < N2 < ... in a very well-defined way. It was an extremely controversial (at the time) result found by Georg Cantor that helped drive him insane. If you're interested, the book Topology (http://www.amazon.com/Topology-2nd-James-Munkres/dp/0131816292) by James R. Munkres has probably the clearest explanation I have seen for it. Here's two videos that explain the concept as well:

mciBPGCvpBk

c8uDJt5-ZYM

The book used for the class above, Principles of Mathematical Analysis (http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Mathematical-Analysis-Third-Walter/dp/007054235X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c), is awesome too, but tries to be a little too slick and is neither as thorough nor as clear as Munkres' section on the subject in his Topology book.

And now back to the bickering...

[Wild Cobra]

Also, I don't see the connection between expanding and having boundaries (or not). And how having boundaries and what they're made of have any significance with expansion.
What they are speaking of is what we know of as the known universe. There is only so far out we can see. Now I am confused with what others are implying myself. I think they are trying to explain extreme Doppler shifts the wrong way. The Doppler effect only works with a change in velocity. Now we know of different factors that change the speed of light, but that is changing densities. For a red shift without it being a Doppler effect would require that the speed of light be different in different locations in the universe. This is either achieved by extreme gravitation like a black hole or quasar, or that their is actually some kind of a "fabric" to space. This is why I scoffed at the quasar example, as they have extreme gravity and can change light frequency though what we might call time dilation.

If you have a theory that explains this red shift some other way, I'm open. No one here has explained it well, or I messed that post.

There is also so much about science we still don't know. The frequency spectra of atoms and molecules may also change from some yet unknown force.

Back to an earlier post. I keep asking question that no one here seems capable of answering, except to say it's accepted theory. How many theories throughout time have we disproved? Again, I am not saying the theory is wrong. Only that it's laughable so many accept it as fact.

[ElNono]

I'm not sure if you wanted to get that out of your chest or what, but it didn't address the question I asked (and you quoted):

Also, I don't see the connection between expanding and having boundaries (or not). And how having boundaries and what they're made of have any significance with expansion.

[ElNono]

Back to an earlier post. I keep asking question that no one here seems capable of answering, except to say it's accepted theory. How many theories throughout time have we disproved? Again, I am not saying the theory is wrong. Only that it's laughable so many accept it as fact.

Now, what you're being told and it seems to be over your head is that it's not being taken as a fact, but it's taken as the best theory at the current time. It takes a better theory to unsettle that one, or simply verification that the theory is indeed a fact. As you ask how many theories we've disproved through time, I have to ask you how many theories we've proven to be fact through time?

If you're going to dismiss the theory as just 'being a theory', then it's expected that you either 1) explain in detail why do you think the theory is flawed, and 2) propose a better theory that addresses those shortcomings.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not sure if you wanted to get that out of your chest or what, but it didn't address the question I asked (and you quoted):

Also, I don't see the connection between expanding and having boundaries (or not). And how having boundaries and what they're made of have any significance with expansion.
We all agree the galaxies are moving farther apart. I don't believe there are boundaries as such. I was pointing out such an impractical argument someone implied before. How do you make infinity any larger? that's why I also stated "known universe."

What the question seems to be that everyone dances around, is what is causing the expansion. That isn't so much the issue to me as is why are they trying to explain what appears to be normal red shifting via the Dopper effect as something else.

It is accepted that this "dark energy" is the reason the galaxies continue to move away from each other and why it is accepted that gravitational forces will not pull them back. Now, we either consider this dark energy what the ancients would call "aether," which would be a medium to change the wavelength of photons, or it has no effect on the photons, and the red shift we see is from the Doppler effect, except for other possible reasons that either change the space-time, or other influences that change molecular vibrational frequencies.

[Wild Cobra]

Now, what you're being told and it seems to be over your head is that it's not being taken as a fact, but it's taken as the best theory at the current time. It takes a better theory to unsettle that one, or simply verification that the theory is indeed a fact. As you ask how many theories we've disproved through time, I have to ask you how many theories we've proven to be fact through time?

If you're going to dismiss the theory as just 'being a theory', then it's expected that you either 1) explain in detail why do you think the theory is flawed, and 2) propose a better theory that addresses those shortcomings.
I want to know how there is a certain distinction between the Doppler effect, and the other examinations. If you see the theory you say went over my heard, which was it? I will be glad to read it again, or the first time if I missed it.

[ElNono]

We all agree the galaxies are moving farther apart. I don't believe there are boundaries as such. I was pointing out such an impractical argument someone implied before. How do you make infinity any larger? that's why I also stated "known universe."

What the question seems to be that everyone dances around, is what is causing the expansion. That isn't so much the issue to me as is why are they trying to explain what appears to be normal red shifting via the Dopper effect as something else.

It is accepted that this "dark energy" is the reason the galaxies continue to move away from each other and why it is accepted that gravitational forces will not pull them back. Now, we either consider this dark energy what the ancients would call "aether," which would be a medium to change the wavelength of photons, or it has no effect on the photons, and the red shift we see is from the Doppler effect, except for other possible reasons that either change the space-time, or other influences that change molecular vibrational frequencies.

Well, there's a few known facts to dance around. For example, we know for a fact now that Einstein was right about space-time being interwoven and magnetic fields like the one around the Earth causing a vortex that change space-time (verified just last month (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/)). As such, we know for a fact that space-time changes due to black holes, neutron starts and the like.

When you talk about "change molecular vibrational frequencies" you're not talking about photons, are you? Photons are not molecules. They're an elemental particle that has no mass. We also know that while they have certain 'wave-like' features, they're not necessarily classical waves (for example, they don't need a medium to go through, and don't decay spontaneously in empty space).


I want to know how there is a certain distinction between the Doppler effect, and the other examinations.

You can use the Doppler effect to measure any distance. The reality though, is that you can get better precision with other methods as far as space is concerned. You can use the Doppler values of known distances to build a scale that would let you use it for distances not measurable by other methods. There's obviously a few more known caveats of using the Doppler effect in outer space (which are outlined in it's respective Wiki entry under Astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect)).


If you see the theory you say went over my heard, which was it? I will be glad to read it again, or the first time if I missed it.

I said what went over your head is the fact that nobody think all this stuff is fact. At the same time, nobody dismisses it because "it's just a theory" and "we've disproved many theories". We've proven many theories before too. If you're going to dismiss it, the least it's asked of you is to point out clearly what's flawed about the theory, and hopefully propose a theory that works around all the flaws. Normally this is work done by trained scientists that work with this stuff every day, and are able to test (technology-permitting) and prove/disprove factually the flaws. Now, you're certainly free to create your own competing theory. Unfortunately, in science you need more than just an opinion to be taken seriously.

[MannyIsGod]

Its been mentioned several times, but once again the cosmological redshift is not a Doppler effect.

[Cry Havoc]

OTOH, I have always been a bit suspicious at the degree of self-disclosure. So much damaging personal information delivered unbidden and completely gratuitously, on a public effing forum. Who would do that intentionally?

Aside from koriwhat? Nihilism would be my only rational answer.

[Cry Havoc]

Does anyone else find it most telling that WC does not appear to understand what a photon is?

[LnGrrrR]

WC, given what we now know about physics, I don't think there will ever be a way to determine what, if anything, is "on the other side". If we could sense it, it would become part of our universe, and automatically exclude it from being "on the other side". (Of course, who knows where science will go next.... quantum physics defies a lot of intuitive laws as is.)

[Wild Cobra]

Well, there's a few known facts to dance around. For example, we know for a fact now that Einstein was right about space-time being interwoven and magnetic fields like the one around the Earth causing a vortex that change space-time (verified just last month (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/)). As such, we know for a fact that space-time changes due to black holes, neutron starts and the like.

So you are making my point.


When you talk about "change molecular vibrational frequencies" you're not talking about photons, are you? Photons are not molecules. They're an elemental particle that has no mass. We also know that while they have certain 'wave-like' features, they're not necessarily classical waves (for example, they don't need a medium to go through, and don't decay spontaneously in empty space).

I get tired of you assuming I don't know what's happening just because I skip severl steps when I say something. If you need me to spell things out step by step, you are wasting my time.

The photons wavelength is determined by the elements and molecules that are excited. To my knowledge, these red shifts are being determined by the spectral frequencies (photons) of elements and molecules. All elements have a specific known vibrational pattern. Hydrogen for example:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Hydrogen_spectrum.svg/500px-Hydrogen_spectrum.svg.png

Therefore, the red or blue shift is determined by how this changes, increasing or deceasing in nanometers. You have to have a known element or molecule to compare. The frequencies may change, but the spacing remains proportional of the affected wave numbers.


You can use the Doppler effect to measure any distance. The reality though, is that you can get better precision with other methods as far as space is concerned. You can use the Doppler values of known distances to build a scale that would let you use it for distances not measurable by other methods. There's obviously a few more known caveats of using the Doppler effect in outer space (which are outlined in it's respective Wiki entry under Astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect)).

No shit Sherlock. I know all this already.


I said what went over your head is the fact that nobody think all this stuff is fact. At the same time, nobody dismisses it because "it's just a theory" and "we've disproved many theories". We've proven many theories before too. If you're going to dismiss it, the least it's asked of you is to point out clearly what's flawed about the theory, and hopefully propose a theory that works around all the flaws. Normally this is work done by trained scientists that work with this stuff every day, and are able to test (technology-permitting) and prove/disprove factually the flaws. Now, you're certainly free to create your own competing theory. Unfortunately, in science you need more than just an opinion to be taken seriously.

OK, the fact that people make fun of my questions and cannot answer them is not an indication that they fail to understand.

Got it.

[Wild Cobra]

Its been mentioned several times, but once again the cosmological redshift is not a Doppler effect.
I know that. So please explain what causes it if it's not the Doppler effect.

As far as I can make out, they are just renaming the Doppler effect.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, given what we now know about physics, I don't think there will ever be a way to determine what, if anything, is "on the other side". If we could sense it, it would become part of our universe, and automatically exclude it from being "on the other side". (Of course, who knows where science will go next.... quantum physics defies a lot of intuitive laws as is.)
I don't think there's another side. I just brought that up as food for thought.

[Wild Cobra]

Does anyone else find it most telling that WC does not appear to understand what a photon is?
ha ha...

Think you're funny huh?

[LnGrrrR]

The photons wavelength is determined by the elements and molecules that are excited.

Uhm... but a photon isn't an element, or a molecule. It's... energy. It doesn't have a chemical makeup. Maybe I'm just not reading you correctly.


To my knowledge, these red shifts are being determined by the spectral frequencies (photons) of elements and molecules. All elements have a specific known vibrational pattern. Hydrogen for example:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Hydrogen_spectrum.svg/500px-Hydrogen_spectrum.svg.png

Therefore, the red or blue shift is determined by how this changes, increasing or deceasing in nanometers. You have to have a known element or molecule to compare. The frequencies may change, but the spacing remains proportional of the affected wave numbers.

Except that photons aren't elements or molecules, so you can probably throw out anything that's referencing elements or molecules. Like others have said, photons are truly unique creatures.

Now, as you said, the redshift relies on the FREQUENCY of the wave, right? So your understanding is that the redshift/blueshift can only occur due to a wave freq change, which most often occurs due to a change in medium in "normal" waves.

So why would photons wavelengths "lengthen" if they weren't passing through some sort of media? The answer to that is gravity. Photons on the farther edges of space are most likely moving through less dense/gravitic space, becoming redshifted. No "medium" is needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

Again, I'm only speaking as someone who studies this stuff as a hobby. The other smart people in here can expound/elaborate/correct me.

[LnGrrrR]

Remember, even though light is "massless", it still is affected by gravity. Otherwise, there'd be no such things as black holes.

[Wild Cobra]

Remember, even though light is "massless", it still is affected by gravity. Otherwise, there'd be no such things as black holes.
No shit Sherlock.

Others mentioned gravity, and I did too previous post.

Gravitational red-shifting has nothing to do with the changing terminology.

[LnGrrrR]

No shit Sherlock.

Thanks for being so polite.


Others mentioned gravity, and I did too previous post.

So why can't gravity cause redshift/blueshift without a medium required?


Gravitational red-shifting has nothing to do with the changing terminology.

What changing terminology?

[DMX7]

I know that. So please explain what causes it if it's not the Doppler effect.


No you don't. You keep saying you know things and you keep proving you don't.

[Wild Cobra]

No you don't. You keep saying you know things and you keep proving you don't.
Look, there are too many overlapping sub topics here. Outside of how gravity affects the wavelength, how does the redshift of the expanding universe differ from the Doppler effect with vector math applied?

[Cry Havoc]

ha ha...

Think you're funny huh?

No, I'm actually being quite serious. You keep comparing photons to "elements" and assigning them properties of mass as a springboard for your fallacious theories.

[Wild Cobra]

No, I'm actually being quite serious. You keep comparing photons to "elements" and assigning them properties of mass as a springboard for your fallacious theories.
No I'm not.

The spectral radiation emitted by the elements is in the form of photons.

You know, light...

[MannyIsGod]

WC you either have some of the worst command of the English language I have seen or you simply don't know what you're talking about. Its probably a combination of both.

What is causing the cosmological redshift? Um, whats the OP about?

[TheInternets]

I know that. So please explain what causes it if it's not the Doppler effect.

As far as I can make out, they are just renaming the Doppler effect.

::bang

[rjv]

this is really not that 'big'. we already pretty much assumed the existence of both dark energy and matter. what we have now is observation, or tautology, not anything revealing about the nature of the two.

[ElNono]

So you are making my point.
I get tired of you assuming I don't know what's happening just because I skip severl steps when I say something. If you need me to spell things out step by step, you are wasting my time.

The photons wavelength is determined by the elements and molecules that are excited. To my knowledge, these red shifts are being determined by the spectral frequencies (photons) of elements and molecules. All elements have a specific known vibrational pattern. Hydrogen for example:

Well, then your knowledge is wrong. There's no elements or molecules that make up a photon. A photon is a massless elementary particle, as such it has no subcomponents. You need to wrap your head around that concept first.
Photons have certain wave-like properties, like frequency (and thus wavelength), angular frequency, momentum, etc, but they derive such values from the quantum model (Planck constant, Dirac constant) and not the classical molecular model.


Therefore, the red or blue shift is determined by how this changes, increasing or deceasing in nanometers. You have to have a known element or molecule to compare. The frequencies may change, but the spacing remains proportional of the affected wave numbers.

In the case of molecular structures, you do. In the case of non-molecular measurement, you build the baseline measurement scale by comparing against known measures obtained by other means.


OK, the fact that people make fun of my questions and cannot answer them is not an indication that they fail to understand.

You got your questions answered, multiple times. You're just being obtuse.
How many more times people have to tell you to stop associating classical wave models with photons?

What you're doing is akin to trying to understand Einstein's Theory of General Relativity by using fundamental concepts from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

[ElNono]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

Again, I'm only speaking as someone who studies this stuff as a hobby. The other smart people in here can expound/elaborate/correct me.

Ditto. Another reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler

[Agloco]

I know that. So please explain what causes it if it's not the Doppler effect.

As far as I can make out, they are just renaming the Doppler effect.

Sorry, I've wanted to check in a bit more but I'm attending an International Nuclear Medicine meeting at the convention center. The open bar > than ST.......

It's distinctly different. We don't use a relativistic version of the Doppler equation to explain cosmological redshift, rather we use an extension of special relativity formalism. When considering Doppler relativism, you have to consider that "v" cannot exceed "c".

Your comments on spectra are correct (mostly), they just lacked the proper context.

Interesting discussion, yes yes. :hungry:

[ElNono]

Sorry, I've wanted to check in a bit more but I'm attending an International Nuclear Medicine meeting at the convention center. The open bar > than ST.......

You're not missing much here. Have fun!


It's distinctly different. We don't use a relativistic version of the Doppler equation to explain cosmological redshift, rather we use an extension of special relativity formalism. When considering Doppler relativism, you have to consider that "v" cannot exceed "c".

Your comments on spectra are correct (mostly), they just lacked the proper context.

Right, instead of using Minkowski space metrics (which apply to local effects) you would use FRW (aka FLRW) metrics (which apply to cosmological effects). where velocity can exceed the speed of light.

[Wild Cobra]

WC you either have some of the worst command of the English language I have seen or you simply don't know what you're talking about. Its probably a combination of both.

What is causing the cosmological redshift? Um, whats the OP about?
My explanations could be dumbed down I guess. You mean stuff like this:

The photons wavelength is determined by the elements and molecules that are excited.
So I jumped over your head. I simply did not say the excited elements give off the photons. This is a given for anyone understanding spectral theory. I guess you don't.

Various things can cause redshift. Moving through a varying time, velocity changes, gravity, changes in media density, etc. In space, we don't expect density changes and rarely gravity or time changes. Two moving objects will have a vector relationship where you have to apply a variation of vector mathematics, though the observer will still move as the light does.

The bottom line is there are several causes for red shifting, but the Doppler effect is still part of it when there is relative moment.

[Wild Cobra]

So why can't gravity cause redshift/blueshift without a medium required?
I never said it couldn't, in fact I referred to gravity in response to an earlier item regarding quasars.

What changing terminology?
You got me there. I must not have finished a thought. Disregard that one as I forgot where I was going with it.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, then your knowledge is wrong. There's no elements or molecules that make up a photon. A photon is a massless elementary particle, as such it has no subcomponents. You need to wrap your head around that concept first.

No shit. I know that. Why do you people latch on anything I say that you can intentionally misconstrue? The photons are emitted by excited elements. When I said "To my knowledge, these red shifts are being determined by the spectral frequencies (photons) of elements and molecules," my intent was to the spectral lines came from known sources. This light is emitted by these elements, and have known patterns. How many sentences must I type over something so easily understood. The jumping of the electrons between orbits generate photons then the elements are excited. If we didn't use known elemental sources of emitted photons like hydrogen, we would have no baseline to determine red or blue shifting. Now if science is using some other method to determine this red shift outside of how these patterns of spectral lines shift, then that's a new one on me.


Photons have certain wave-like properties, like frequency (and thus wavelength), angular frequency, momentum, etc, but they derive such values from the quantum model (Planck constant, Dirac constant) and not the classical molecular model.

No shit.

Are you one of those people who like to hear yourself talk?


In the case of molecular structures, you do. In the case of non-molecular measurement, you build the baseline measurement scale by comparing against known measures obtained by other means.

No shit.

My god you are amazingly prejudiced in believing I don't know such things. Just because I don't speak down at this lower level like you do, doesn't mean I don't know it. I'm one that will skip a half dozen steps when figuring something out, so I don't think to write all "step by step" things down, or waste my time explaining in 15 paragraphs what someone understanding the material gets with two.


You got your questions answered, multiple times. You're just being obtuse.
How many more times people have to tell you to stop associating classical wave models with photons?

Maybe I am being obtuse. Again, I am not discounting the theory and new methods of the OP. I really think it's funny you all think you understand it better than I do when you cannot give a simplified explanation.


What you're doing is akin to trying to understand Einstein's Theory of General Relativity by using fundamental concepts from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

No, I was asking leading questions like WH pointed out to show others didn't understand what they were saying. They were just repeating what the experts said, and unable to answer questions about it.

Typical lemmings.

[Wild Cobra]

Ditto. Another reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler

Duh....

Basic science.

I am aware of this.

[Wild Cobra]

It's distinctly different. We don't use a relativistic version of the Doppler equation to explain cosmological redshift, rather we use an extension of special relativity formalism. When considering Doppler relativism, you have to consider that "v" cannot exceed "c".

Now you are the first to make any sense. I brought up relativity in the possible aspect of time distortion for a quasar that DMX7 brought up starting in post #31. My answer in post #33. Though I could have explained that better as with a quasar, it could have two or more components. I explained one a little.


Your comments on spectra are correct (mostly), they just lacked the proper context.

I have forgotten a great deals in the 30+ years since I was in school, and haven't cracked open a quantum physic book for about six years. Science is mind candy to me. With some of these recent developments, time to read again. Thanx for this topic. Some of this is new to me, but my terminology definitely can use some polish, as I seldom discus these topics with others.

I think I have forgot the most when it comes to chemistry. Physics is pretty much simply math compared to chemistry.

[MannyIsGod]

My explanations could be dumbed down I guess. You mean stuff like this:

So I jumped over your head. I simply did not say the excited elements give off the photons. This is a given for anyone understanding spectral theory. I guess you don't.

Various things can cause redshift. Moving through a varying time, velocity changes, gravity, changes in media density, etc. In space, we don't expect density changes and rarely gravity or time changes. Two moving objects will have a vector relationship where you have to apply a variation of vector mathematics, though the observer will still move as the light does.

The bottom line is there are several causes for red shifting, but the Doppler effect is still part of it when there is relative moment.


:lmao

Yes, *I* needed it dumbed down. I didn't mean that anyone here but you needs shit dumbed down, WC. I meant that you're absolutely terrible at making a relevant point and when you couple that with your ignorance this thread is the result.

Amazing. I tell you that you can't make a point and you even manage to turn that around to make it seem as though you are smarter than anyone else here. Amazing.

[MannyIsGod]

Duh....

Basic science.

I am aware of this.

:lol Ether.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol Ether.
You know, by what people were saying in the beginning, I had the wrong concept of what was being said. What I was saying is definitely off the intent of the OP, but it was real fun you guys not understanding what I was referring to. If you notice, some time back, I got off that tangent that expanding space would affect everything equally, therefore not observable.

This topic relies on us agreeing that matter and energy are moving in space, and that space is constant. I was throwing in the angle that space might not be constant. Over your head though.

I would say much of this is a communications problem, that we were not on the same sheet of music. That is, if you even showed a hint that you understood the tangent I went off on.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol Ether

[ElNono]

No shit. I know that.
No shit.
No shit.
My god you are amazingly prejudiced in believing I don't know such things.

So if you know it all, why are you trying to compare the Doppler effect on a Hydrogen molecule to cosmological Doppler? :lol

Also, the metric model used to calculate the cosmological Doppler has existed since 1920-1930... why are you suggesting that somebody is "renaming the Doppler effect"?


Maybe I am being obtuse.

You think?


No, I was asking leading questions like WH pointed out to show others didn't understand what they were saying.

Sure you were. I thought this theory was new to you?


I see you conveniently miss some of my statements so you can perceive me as stupid, rather than ignorant to this theory that is new to me.

[MannyIsGod]

Fucking ether man. I mean seriously.

[ElNono]

Fucking ether man. I mean seriously.

:lol

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe I am being obtuse. Again, I am not discounting the theory and new methods of the OP. I really think it's funny you all think you understand it better than I do when you cannot give a simplified explanation.

You want a simple explanation, and then when we explain it in simple terms, you give us a hard time for "dumbing it down".

Not to mention you act high and mighty, like knowing about quantum physics, vibrational frequencies, and Doppler shifts are common knowledge. So you might want to slow your roll there, cowboy. We're trying to be nice and answer questions, to the best of our ability. No, we're not all scientists working in labs, and to expect that level of knowledge from us is pretty retarded. If you want to know that level of answers (lol simple explanation), then you should probably ask a board that discusses quantum physics.

And yes, I tend to side with the experts on these things because they make sense. Of course, that's not your MO. If ElNoNo and I designed a network for you, would you tell us where we went wrong if you didn't have a working knowledge of networking standards and practices?

We have no proof that you know of these things; the only way to prove it is through demonstrating an advanced understanding of these things.

[Agloco]

Now you are the first to make any sense. I brought up relativity in the possible aspect of time distortion for a quasar that DMX7 brought up starting in post #31. My answer in post #33. Though I could have explained that better as with a quasar, it could have two or more components. I explained one a little.

If you or anyone is interested, Mike Hawkins of the Royal Observatory is quite published in this area. I can access some of the less esoteric articles and E-Mail them as PDFs. Simply send me a PM.


I have forgotten a great deals in the 30+ years since I was in school, and haven't cracked open a quantum physic book for about six years. Science is mind candy to me. With some of these recent developments, time to read again. Thanx for this topic. Some of this is new to me, but my terminology definitely can use some polish, as I seldom discus these topics with others.

I think I have forgot the most when it comes to chemistry. Physics is pretty much simply math compared to chemistry.

The thing about quantum is that reading about it only gives you so much (IMO). Until I learned the mathematical formalism, it was quite confusing. I don't think the descriptors we use in everyday language do a great job of elucidating the finer points. It's one of those things that needs to be lived and breathed for a while.

[LnGrrrR]

This topic relies on us agreeing that matter and energy are moving in space, and that space is constant. I was throwing in the angle that space might not be constant. Over your head though.

Who said space is constant? The fact that the (consensus belief that the) universe is expanding would imply that the idea that space is constant is not currently accepted.

The closest thing to that mentioned in this thread was your philosophical "What if" regarding all of us shrinking.

[Wild Cobra]

Who said space is constant? The fact that the (consensus belief that the) universe is expanding would imply that the idea that space is constant is not currently accepted.

The closest thing to that mentioned in this thread was your philosophical "What if" regarding all of us shrinking.
That monkey wrench is why I went off on that tangent.

Distances are increasing, but for the propose of this topic, everyone is speaking in terms that space itself is nothing. For space itself to expand, it has to comprise of something.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

Like ether?

:lmao x 3048309480483094803483490830

[Wild Cobra]

If you or anyone is interested, Mike Hawkins of the Royal Observatory is quite published in this area. I can access some of the less esoteric articles and E-Mail them as PDFs. Simply send me a PM.
I might take you up on that. I have so far only given my e-mail to one other person here. I am so hated by some, I want to be cautious. get enough spam and junk mail already.

The thing about quantum is that reading about it only gives you so much (IMO). Until I learned the mathematical formalism, it was quite confusing. I don't think the descriptors we use in everyday language do a great job of elucidating the finer points. It's one of those things that needs to be lived and breathed for a while.

I won't dispute that. I only have a very basic understanding of quantum mechanic/physics, and most eludes me. I don't have enough desire to follow it more than I do. It pushes my limits of understanding more than I like.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

Like ether?

:lmao x 3048309480483094803483490830
One of the first lessens of science is that we need to know that we don't know everything. I keep an open mind to the concept. Do you? You know, it's not the same as believing in it.

[LnGrrrR]

Distances are increasing, but for the propose of this topic, everyone is speaking in terms that space itself is nothing. For space itself to expand, it has to comprise of something.

That's more of a philosophical question than a physics one though. Picture a vacuum inside a jar. The space inside the jar signifies our universe. If we are on the bottom of the inside of the jar, then there is technically "nothing" between us and the inside of the top of the jar. That "nothing" though, is different from the "nothing" outside of the jar. It doesn't mean that there is "something" inside the jar between the bottom and top, apart from something esoteric like reality.

[Wild Cobra]

That's more of a philosophical question than a physics one though. Picture a vacuum inside a jar. The space inside the jar signifies our universe. If we are on the bottom of the inside of the jar, then there is technically "nothing" between us and the inside of the top of the jar. That "nothing" though, is different from the "nothing" outside of the jar. It doesn't mean that there is "something" inside the jar between the bottom and top, apart from something esoteric like reality.
But the only difference is what we are defining as matter and energy. All you are doing is distinguishing where our known universe ends at.

I used 'known" purposely.

Let me get this strait. Outside of matter, dark matter, energy, and dark energy, and anything else we have identified... you are saying the space inside and outside the jar are the same nothingness. Right?

If so, we are on the same page with my statement.

[Agloco]

I might take you up on that. I have so far only given my e-mail to one other person here. I am so hated by some, I want to be cautious. get enough spam and junk mail already.

I can appreciate that, I'm no stranger to confidentiality.



I won't dispute that. I only have a very basic understanding of quantum mechanic/physics, and most eludes me. I don't have enough desire to follow it more than I do. It pushes my limits of understanding more than I like.

Quantum is a neat subject to kick around with my non-science friends once we've had a few beers while burning some meat in the backyard. You'd be surprised how many times we've proven Einstein wrong. :lol

It's quite hard to have a serious debate about it though, especially through a keyboard.

[Agloco]

That's more of a philosophical question than a physics one though. Picture a vacuum inside a jar. The space inside the jar signifies our universe. If we are on the bottom of the inside of the jar, then there is technically "nothing" between us and the inside of the top of the jar. That "nothing" though, is different from the "nothing" outside of the jar. It doesn't mean that there is "something" inside the jar between the bottom and top, apart from something esoteric like reality.

:tu





We have no proof that you know of these things; the only way to prove it is through demonstrating an advanced understanding of these things.

:tu :tu

[ElNono]

I'm personally more interested in the quantum entanglement and the derivatives for computations, as it's the field that's my preference. Ultimately, after looking at much of the math and theory behind it, I've concluded that I'll most likely have to work with a higher abstraction level than the actual guts. Which kinda sucks since with electronics and general physics it was much much easier.

[PublicOption]

http://img.brothersoft.com/screenshots/softimage/d/darth_vader-87681-1.jpeg

[Agloco]

I'm personally more interested in the quantum entanglement and the derivatives for computations, as it's the field that's my preference. Ultimately, after looking at much of the math and theory behind it, I've concluded that I'll most likely have to work with a higher abstraction level than the actual guts. Which kinda sucks since with electronics and general physics it was much much easier.

I've read, albeit briefly about quantum computing. It's quite fascinating. Another less abstract construct in computing might interest you as well:

http://www.dailytech.com/New+DNA+Computer+Can+Calculate+Square+Roots+of+Int egers+Up+to+15/article21811.htm

I have to admit that I know next to nothing about the particulars but the concept fascinates me to no end.

[ElNono]

I've read, albeit briefly about quantum computing. It's quite fascinating. Another less abstract construct in computing might interest you as well:

http://www.dailytech.com/New+DNA+Computer+Can+Calculate+Square+Roots+of+Int egers+Up+to+15/article21811.htm

I have to admit that I know next to nothing about the particulars but the concept fascinates me to no end.

Thanks. I've read about it a few days ago when it was announced. It's 'neat' but it basically comes to replicate the current deterministic computing model. Quantum mechanics actually turns the entire computing model around. It's hard to wrap your head around when you're coming from the classical model, but once you understand the implications both from computing and communications, it's huge. It really is a quantum leap, no pun intended :D

[Wild Cobra]

I've read, albeit briefly about quantum computing. It's quite fascinating. Another less abstract construct in computing might interest you as well:

http://www.dailytech.com/New+DNA+Computer+Can+Calculate+Square+Roots+of+Int egers+Up+to+15/article21811.htm

I have to admit that I know next to nothing about the particulars but the concept fascinates me to no end.
If such a concept would work faster and without replication, it would be awesome.

Found a clearer image of the gate circuit:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/DNAdigital_logic.png (http://www.kurzweilai.net/researchers-build-largest-biochemical-circuit-out-of-small-synthetic-dna-molecules)

[TE]

http://www.dailytech.com/New+DNA+Computer+Can+Calculate+Square+Roots+of+Int egers+Up+to+15/article21811.htm



:wow

wow

[LnGrrrR]

The big hope is that quantum computing might be able to solve np-complete problems. The jury is still out on that though, last I checked.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/06/magic-quantum-wand-does-not-vanish-hard-maths.ars

[Agloco]

The big hope is that quantum computing might be able to solve np-complete problems. The jury is still out on that though, last I checked.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/06/magic-quantum-wand-does-not-vanish-hard-maths.ars

Good article with a solid explanation of decoherence and entanglement.

A quote from it:


This brings us, finally, to a current PNAS paper by researchers at Columbia University and NEC Laboratories who have investigated the problem-solving abilities of adiabatic quantum computers. What they have shown is that, when adiabatic quantum computers are used to solve NP-complete problems, the energy gap between the lowest energy state and the next state up is not well behaved. Instead, it narrows faster than exponentially, meaning the adiabatic quantum computing cannot, even in principle, solve NP-complete problems faster than a classical computer.

What makes this work special is that it is more general than the papers that precede it. Rather than focusing on a specific problem, the researchers looked at the statistics of how the energy gap behaves. They found that adiabatic quantum systems exhibit properties very similar to disordered quantum systems.


Interesting. I wonder what degree of autocorrelation exists there and if it's been investigated.

Physicists from all walks are turning towards adiabatic systems/processes as an investigational tool. In MRI, we utilize adiabatic pulse sequences to better suppress the signal from fat which can be quite pesky and tricky to deal with otherwise:

http://www.medical.siemens.com/siemens/en_US/rg_marcom_FBAs/files/brochures/magnetom_dec_2008/MAGNETOM_Flash_Nov_08_SPAIR_MR_imaging.pdf

You can think of this generically as removing a confounding variable. I know that in regard to quantum energy states, the iterative processes used for computations serve as an additional variable as well. Why? Well because the act of taking a measurement perturbs the system. Those perturbations add up and lead to decoherence.

I believe the trick is in the measurement process. Yes the energy states don't tend to cooperate, but the approach should be to eliminate confounding variables one by one. Since the adiabatic approach didn't yield fruitful results, perhaps an overhaul of measurement methodology is in order.

I'll probably spend a good chunk of my vacation time reading about these new computers. Good stuff.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll probably spend a good chunk of my vacation time reading about these new computers. Good stuff.

Nerd! :lol

Then again, that's probably why you make more than me :)

Honestly though, arstechnica is a fun site. You should look around in it.

[Agloco]

Nerd! :lol

That obvious eh? I should have stated that I'd do it over a glass of Hennessey VSOP and a stogie for the right touch of cool :rollin





Then again, that's probably why you make more than me :)

Honestly though, arstechnica is a fun site. You should look around in it.

:tu

I'll do that. Seems like there's a wealth of ideas floating around in there. With the right motivation anythings possible.

As for making more, that's probably due more to luck and circumstance than anything else. How does that phrase go? "I'd rather be lucky than good.....".

[LnGrrrR]

As for making more, that's probably due more to luck and circumstance than anything else. How does that phrase go? "I'd rather be lucky than good.....".

No hate. :) Once I retire from the military and get relatively cheap health care for life, I'll probably be as wealthy (relatively speaking) as a millionaire when health care costs double and redouble in the next few years. :D

[DarkReign]

No hate. :) Once I retire from the military and get relatively cheap health care for life, I'll probably be as wealthy (relatively speaking) as a millionaire when health care costs double and redouble in the next few years. :D

...until the government cuts your benefits because they cant afford it, either.

[LnGrrrR]

...until the government cuts your benefits because they cant afford it, either.

That won't ever happen! I'm going to plug my ears now and go LA LA LA LA!

Although speaking truthfully, I doubt politicians will ever have the balls to really screw with soldiers medical benefits too much. Maybe increase copays, but anything drastic would probably look bad for the politician who tried it.

At the least, they should grandfather in any changes.